Frat Culture Outline
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Florida State University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
2000
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Dec 6, 2023
Type
docx
Pages
7
Uploaded by masontorrance9
Stage 1: Determine the need for critical self-protection by asking:
1.
Is a major claim on beliefs/attitudes/values or actions being made?
a.
Yes. Webb asserts that fraternity organizations are dangerous and uncontrollable.
She states throughout her rhetoric that fraternity organizations are toxic and violent on college campuses throughout the country. She is making a major claim
on beliefs and values of fraternity culture.
2.
Is the person merely relaying information or is he/she/they strategically presenting the material?
a.
Webb is strategically presenting the material through statistical evidence and examples in an effort to expose the truth behind fraternity organizations.
Stage 2: Identify the claims that are being made:
1.
Claim 1: Fraternity organizations are toxic and violent. 2.
Claim 2: Fraternity members are more likely to commit crimes than non-members.
3.
Claim 3: Fraternities haze their new members too severely.
4.
Claim 4: Fraternities should be shut down to ensure better safety of women on campus.
Stage 3: Test the quality of the case for the claims:
Substage 1: Does the rhetor provide evidence and reasoning for every claim?
1.
Yes, example from personal experience. In the beginning of the rhetoric Webb gives her audience an example from personal experience how fraternity members are indeed violent and toxic. In the opening paragraph Webb states, “I was roofied by a fraternity brother who I thought was my friend.” (para. 1). This supports her claim on how toxic fraternity brothers can be through her own personal experience. 2.
Yes, through statistical evidence. Webb uses outside resources to support her claim that fraternity brothers are more likely to commit crimes. One study found, “Men who are in a fraternity are three time more likely to commit sexual assault compared to men who
are not in a fraternity.” (para. 27). This proves Webb’s claim that fraternity brothers are more likely to commit crimes through a statistical example from a completed study. 3.
Yes, through examples from outside sources. Webb claims that fraternities haze their new member too severely, and that it can even lead to death of members. She supports this claim by stating, “According to New York Times, Virginia Commonwealth University suspended a fraternity after a freshman was found dead over the weekend…” (para. 12).
This proves Webb’s claims by giving her audience information on the severe hazing that takes place in fraternities.
4.
No. At the end of Webb’s statement she says, “If we want progress, if we want women’s rights, equality and to end violence, frats need to go.” (para. 33). Although Webb gave her audience much support of her claims and information from outside sources on fraternity activities, she does not give enough support to make the claim of shutting down fraternities. Substage 2: Does the support material meet the tests of evidence?
1.
The example evidence used in support of claim 1 passes the TOE because it is recent and
relevant. 2.
The statistical evidence used in support of claim 2 pass the TOE because there was a large enough and representative sample in the study completed.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
3.
The example evidence used in support of claim 3 passes the TOE because it is recent, relevant, and from a credible source.
4.
Claim 4 did not pass TOE
Substage 3: Is the reasoning consistent?
I believe that Webb gives consistent evidence and reasoning throughout her statement, excluding her conclusion. Throughout the entirety of her statement, she gave her audience much support for her claims, but in her conclusions she states that fraternities should be shut down, with no other solutions given. Substage 4: Does the reasoning lead to the conclusion directly or could there be alternative factors that invalidate the conclusion?
I believe that the reasoning does not lead to Webb’s conclusion directly. There is an alternative solution to the problems the fraternity organizations cause rather than shutting them down completely.
Substage 5: Are there counterarguments or facts that invalidate the conclusion?
Yes, there are counterarguments that invalidate her conclusions. Some other solutions that also help reduce the amount of crime committed by fraternity organizations are temporary shutdowns, closer regulation of activities, and complete monitor by the University. Consider whether on balance on a strong argument is made:
Strengths/Weaknesses
1.
The example evidence supports claim 1, passes the TOE
2.
The statistical evidence supports claim 2, passes the TOE
3.
The example evidence supports claim 3, passes the TOE
Weaknesses
1.
Claim 4 does not pass the TOE
2.
Webb uses personal opinion in her conclusion excluding all other potential solutions to the issue.
Stage 4: Test the rhetoric for manipulation:
1.
Does the rhetoric attempt to prevent other voices from being heard?
Yes, Webb attempts to prevent other voices being heard throughout her statement. She is very strong in her opinion on fraternal organizations. She supports most of claims with
substantial evidence, but in her conclusion her only solution is to shut down the fraternities. “If we want progress… frats need to go.” (para.33). This leaves no room for other potential solutions to be heard and shuts down other voices. 2.
Does the rhetoric attempt to overwhelm our reason?
Yes, Webb does attempt to overwhelm our reason. Although she gives the audience plenty of substantial evidence and support her conclusion on shutting down fraternities overwhelms reason. There are other potential solutions that can be put into effect to help hinder the problems the fraternities cause.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
3.
Does the rhetoric attack groups or individual people, rather than their ideas or actions?
Yes, Webb attacks fraternity groups. She has very good evidence throughout her statement that fully supports her claims of fraternity organizations being violent and prone to crime. Although she does this with confrontation, and completely shuts out other voices from being heard on the issue.